This is a healthy attitude. The game offers "easy mode" in the sense that you can use tools like summons, magic, just plain old grinding until you're massively levelled, and so on, but if you're not enjoying it then there's no point playing. It's okay for a game to not be for everyone and good for people to recognise that it's not for them.
I really enjoy the games but fuck me there's no way I'll ever be taking on Malenia. I could use summons and stuff, but what I actually like is the one-on-one dodging fights, so if I did I'd just be doing it to have done it. That's fine. I just have to evaluate the game based on what I get from the rest of it
Other people have mentioned Paradox several times, and they are unquestionably the big name of the grand strat genre. Their main games are:
Hearts of Iron. WW2 setting, pretty much exclusively about war. If you want to flex your strategic skills, this is the one to get.
Victoria. The 100 years before WW2. Primarily about industrialisation. Victoria games have by far the most in-depth economy systems.
Europa Universalis. These ones are about the era of European colonialism, spanning three to four hundred years with the Napoleonic wars at the end. EU4 is pretty the most like a Total War campaign map in feel.
Crusader Kings. 700 years of feudalism. The map in these ones is limited to Europe, the western half of Asia, and the north of Africa. Distinct in that you play as a dynasty rather than a country. These ones are the most roleplay-heavy
Stellaris. This is the only one I haven't played, so I'm afraid I can't say much about it
Very interested in this. I haven't played Myst, because I've just always found point-and-click to be quite unpleasant. Do I need to have played it to understand what's going on here?
I am seeing that there was a remake of Myst in a similar fashion, so I will take a look at that in its own right